Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

One of the points I would make about the reporting mechanism is that at present the RPII is independent and that is valuable. In fact, that was one of the elements we sought in terms of oversight of the sectoral plans in the climate action and low carbon development Bill.

What will happen now is that instead of that independence, the reporting will be done through the CEO and there will be a loss of independence.

I do not have any reason to dispute the scientific advice produced by EPA. My concern relates to the EPA's ability to respond where people who hold licences are non-compliant. The EPA tends to work with such people, in some cases for an overly long period. I can identify bad experiences in which the EPA should have become involved at a much earlier stage. It is understandable for the EPA to hesitate if jobs may be put at risk by the closure of a company that is not complying with its licence. There is a trade-off in this regard but the perceptions of such a trade-off can diminish the role of the EPA. I have often wondered whether it has the capacity to follow through in respect of certain non-compliant licence holders. When our meeting concludes, I can provide the Minister of State with a pretty bad example from my constituency if he so wishes but I do not want to outline it here. One's view of an organisation can be coloured by such examples. I can also attest to good examples but these tend to involve licence holders who go beyond the call of duty to be compliant. As I think it should have a separate function, I will be pressing the amendment.